Skyfield v. United States

Background

Tyriek Skyfield and Prince Wareham were charged with federal offenses arising from an armed-robbery crew’s activities. Relevant here, both were charged with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and carrying or using a firearm during and in relation to the attempted robbery. The firearm count was based on a handgun being discharged during a 2010 Bronx home invasion and robbery.

Both defendants pleaded guilty to the firearm count. Skyfield received a 120-month prison sentence, followed by three years of supervised release. Wareham received an 84-month prison sentence, also followed by three years of supervised release. The court dismissed the remaining open counts against each defendant, and neither appealed.

Skyfield later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which permits a federal prisoner to seek correction of a sentence imposed unlawfully or in violation of federal law. He initially alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He later added a challenge based on Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis, Supreme Court decisions concerning unconstitutional language in federal firearm statutes. Wareham filed a similar challenge to his firearm conviction and sentence.

Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery as a Crime of Violence

Both petitioners argued that attempted Hobbs Act robbery could not qualify as a “crime of violence” supporting a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That statute requires a mandatory consecutive sentence when a person uses, carries, or possesses a firearm in furtherance of a qualifying violent crime. The relevant definition, known as the elements clause or force clause, covers a felony that includes the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property.

While these motions were pending, the Second Circuit held in a decision identified in the opinion as McCoy that attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c). The district court therefore concluded that the petitioners’ firearm convictions were not invalid on this ground. The court denied both Skyfield’s and Wareham’s requests for relief based on Johnson and its related decisions. It declined to delay the ruling despite a contrary Fourth Circuit decision and a pending request for Supreme Court review. The court stated that the petitioners could seek reconsideration if the law in the Second Circuit later changed.

Skyfield’s Ineffective-Assistance Claim

Skyfield also argued that his trial lawyer failed to assess the case correctly and failed to give legally adequate advice about the government’s plea offer. The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was unreasonably deficient and that, without the error, there was a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and instead would have gone to trial.

The court rejected Skyfield’s argument that counsel should not have allowed him to plead guilty because he personally did not fire the gun. The conviction also rested on aiding and abetting the attempted robbery during which a gun was discharged, so the court found his personal non-discharge irrelevant to the charge.

The court also rejected Skyfield’s claim that counsel failed to investigate whether he had advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun. The court relied on counsel’s sworn statement that counsel had explained the firearm-discharge theory and that Skyfield said he understood it. It also relied on Skyfield’s sworn plea-hearing statements that he understood the charges and plea agreement, had told counsel everything he knew, was pleading guilty because he was guilty, and was satisfied with counsel’s representation. The court found that Skyfield neither showed deficient performance nor alleged that he would have insisted on going to trial.

Disposition

The court denied Tyriek Skyfield’s and Prince Wareham’s motions to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because neither petitioner made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that any appeal by either petitioner would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions and close the two civil cases.